Let's see whose presumptions are more reasonable sounding. Assume there is a verse in the Bible that says "... and the hungry alligator did not eat the chicken unto he had rushed upon it". Now we have the question "Does the Bible say that an alligator ever ate a chicken?" Full Court says "YES!" But you, OTOH, would say "No, no, no. I have extra-Biblical Tradition which clearly says that when the alligator got there, he and the chicken had a tea party and then had a pillow fight. Therefore, the Bible must be interpreted in this light. The Bible never says anything like what you PRESUME".
Clearly, if we even grant you your point on the "until" "unto" issue (which I do not think we are obligated to do), both sides makes presumptions about the future. I am confident that logic, and human experience strongly favor our presumptions and strongly discredit your Tradition.
Herein lies your error. Tradition is a documented life of the Church from the earliest days, within a certain culture and mindset. You cannot apply logic to cultures. Arranged marriages for other than procreation were known and not unusual within the culture of Israel of Jesus' times.
"Clearly, if we even grant you your point on the "until" "unto" issue (which I do not think we are obligated to do)..."
Unless you want to make up a new meaning for "eos", you have to grant the point.
As to which presumption about the future is correct, neither of us will be able to prove our point to the other. Which one is "strongly discredited" depends on whether or not one believes that the Church would consistently and unanimously pass down a history that was false.
If Jewish or secular histories say something extra-biblical, Protestants have a tendency to believe them to be true. If an extra-biblical history is passed down within the Christian Church, Protestants have the default setting of believing it to be false. It is that simple.